AIPPM Background Guide
Agenda: Evaluating India’s Counter-Terror Strategy Post the Pahalgam Attack
Committee: All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM)
Introduction
Terrorism in all its forms continues to be one of the most profound and persistent threats to India’s internal
security, public order and national sovereignty. As one of the largest democracies in the world, India faces a
complex and multifaceted challenge in its fight against terrorism ranging from cross border infiltration and
homegrown radicalism to cyber-enabled extremism and insurgencies driven by ideological or political
motives.
Over the past few decades, India has endured a long and painful history of terror incidents that have not only
taken thousands of lives but also left deep psychological, social and political scars. Notable among them are
the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, which struck at the very heart of India's democratic institution, the 2005
Delhi bombings which targeted civilians in crowded public areas, the 2008 Mumbai attacks which
showcased the alarming capabilities of state sponsored cross border terror groups and countless other lesser
known but equally tragic incidents across Kashmir, the Northeast and the central tribal belt plagued by Maoist
insurgency.
In this continuum of violent disruptions, the Pahalgam attack marks another critical flashpoint an ambush
that not only reignited national anger but also raised disturbing questions about the preparedness, coordination
and adaptability of India’s counter terror apparatus. The attack suspected to have been executed with precision
planning, indicates possible gaps in intelligence, surveillance, and ground level security protocols. But more
importantly it has sparked a nationwide conversation on whether India’s current counter terror policy is
sufficiently future proofed to deal with the evolving nature of modern terrorism.
India’s counter terror strategy must contend with a wide range of actors state and non state local and global,
digital and physical. The rise of "hybrid terrorism" wherein locals are radicalized and armed by external
handlers, poses unique complications for Indian agencies. Additionally, the influence of extremist ideologies
propagated through encrypted messaging platforms and social media complicates detection and prevention,
especially among vulnerable youth populations.
The federal structure of India adds another layer of complexity to counter-terrorism efforts. Law and order is
a State subject under the Constitution, yet terrorism often transcends state boundaries, necessitating a
harmonized and cooperative approach between the Centre and the States. Jurisdictional overlaps, political
tensions between central and state governments, and institutional silos have often resulted in delays or diluted
responses.
Furthermore, India operates in a sensitive geopolitical neighborhood. With Pakistan's continued support to
terror infrastructure, China’s obstructionist role in the UN Security Council and the volatile situation
in Afghanistan, regional security dynamics directly impact India’s internal security environment. Despite
several military responses such as the surgical strikes in 2016 and the Balakot air strikes in 2019, it is clear
that kinetic responses alone cannot eliminate terrorism.
Understanding the Pahalgam Attack
1. What Happened?
On April 22, 2025, one of the most brutal and coordinated terrorist attacks in recent Indian history took place
in Baisaran Valley, a popular tourist destination near Pahalgam in the Anantnag district of Jammu and
Kashmir. The attackers five armed militants linked to the banned Pakistan based terror group Lashkar-e-
Taiba (LeT), operating under the pseudonym of The Resistance Front (TRF) launched a targeted mass
shooting on tourists, killing 26 individuals and injuring nearly 20 others.
Unlike previous terror attacks that focused primarily on military or security convoys, the Pahalgam attack was
explicitly directed at civilians mostly domestic tourists and religious minorities. According to eyewitnesses
and preliminary investigative reports the attackers entered the high altitude meadow of Baisaran, often
referred to as "Mini Switzerland" due to its lush beauty during peak tourist hours. They strategically chose
this timing to ensure maximum casualties and media attention.
The militants were reportedly armed with automatic rifles (AK-47s and M4 carbines) and carried IEDs
(Improvised Explosive Devices). Once on the site, they used brutal identification techniques to segregate
individuals based on religion forcing men to recite the kalima (Islamic declaration of faith), checking for
circumcision, and even interrogating people about their names and hometowns. Those identified as Hindus
and Christians were executed at point-blank range, often in front of their families, including children and
elderly parents.
In a chilling turn, some of the attackers reportedly filmed the execution style killings and took selfies with
the victims’ corpses. This not only served a propaganda purpose for extremist groups but also aimed to inflict
maximum psychological trauma on survivors, the victims' families and the wider public.
One of the most tragic aspects of the attack was the death of a local Muslim pony operator, who was shot
dead while trying to shield a group of tourists. His sacrifice became symbolic of the unity and shared suffering
of ordinary Kashmiris and visiting civilians in the face of terror.
2. Immediate Fallout
A. National Outrage and Emotional Shock
News of the Pahalgam attack spread rapidly, dominating national and international headlines. Within hours,
television channels across India were flooded with visuals of the blood soaked valley, grieving families and
survivors narrating the horror. The country plunged into mourning, with candlelight vigils held in cities
from Srinagar to Mumbai and Kolkata to Chennai. Hashtags like #PahalgamMassacre,
#IndiaWillNeverForget, and #JusticeForTourists trended for days on social media platforms.
Survivor testimonies further enraged the public. The sheer barbarity and communal targeting especially
the execution of honeymooning couples, children, and off duty military officers led to widespread emotional
distress and anger. The attack was compared in its brutality and symbolism to the 2008 Mumbai attacks,
marking a dark chapter in India’s counter-terror history.
B. Political Reactions Across the Spectrum
Leaders across party lines unequivocally condemned the attack.
• Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a televised address, called it “a direct assault on India's unity and
humanity,” and promised a measured but firm response.
• Home Minister Amit Shah chaired multiple high-level meetings with intelligence and security
officials, declaring that “every drop of blood shed in Pahalgam will be avenged.”
• Opposition leaders, including the Congress President, West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee, and
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, offered condolences and demanded an independent inquiry into
intelligence failures.
• Regional leaders from Kashmir, including Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah, condemned the
attack while urging the government to ensure the safety of civilians without alienating the local
population.
The All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM) was called within 72 hours of the attack to deliberate on a
national-level response and seek consensus on anti-terror strategy reforms.
C. Heightened Military and Intelligence Operations
Within 24 hours, the government launched “Operation Sindoor”, a comprehensive counter-terrorism
operation aimed at neutralizing militant hideouts in South Kashmir, especially in the Shopian, Pulwama,
and Anantnag belts.
• Cordon-and-search operations were intensified with support from the Army, CRPF, and Jammu and
Kashmir Police.
• Surveillance drones and thermal imaging equipment were deployed to detect movement in forested
areas.
• Mobile networks and internet services were temporarily shut down in select areas to prevent
communication between terrorists and their handlers.
• The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation, arresting two locals suspected
of aiding the attackers.
D. Diplomatic and Strategic Repercussions
India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) quickly issued a dossier detailing evidence of Pakistani
involvement, including satellite imagery of terror camps, intercepted communications, and confessions from
arrested individuals
Diplomatic moves included:
• Expelling Pakistani diplomats from the Indian High Commission
• Suspending the Indus Waters Treaty
• Calling off bilateral engagements and placing diplomatic pressure through international allies
• Raising the issue at the United Nations, demanding a global coalition against cross-border terrorism
Global leaders including those from the Quad nations (US, Japan, Australia), France, Israel, and the UK
condemned the attack, calling for accountability and justice.
E. Public and Media Mobilization
Mainstream and regional media ran round the clock coverage of the incident, often showing unfiltered
visuals. While this galvanized public sentiment, it also raised ethical concerns about trauma exposure.
Social media influencers, artists and civil society organizations joined hands in organizing relief campaigns,
fundraisers for the victims' families and awareness drives against radicalization.
F. Renewed Debates on India’s Counter-Terror Framework
The attack reignited debates on:
• The effectiveness of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
• The role of AFSPA in disturbed areas
• Whether India needs a permanent National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC)
• The integration of state and central intelligence
• Reforms in community-based counter radicalization efforts
Public discourse began to pivot toward not just retaliation, but also systemic reform, intelligence
modernization, and socio-political reconciliation.
Historical Context of Terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir
A. Rise of Insurgency
The origins of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) stem from a complex mix of political instability, socio-
economic neglect, religious polarization and sustained foreign interference particularly from Pakistan. The
insurgency that began in 1989 was not spontaneous. it was carefully orchestrated over years by external forces,
taking advantage of internal unrest and alienation.
How It All Started
• Before 1989, Kashmir was relatively peaceful despite occasional political agitations.
• Discontent over the rigging of the 1987 Assembly Elections, where the Muslim United Front (MUF)
was allegedly denied a fair chance which acted as a turning point. Many youth who were involved in
political activism at that time crossed over to Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and were trained in
guerrilla warfare.
• With Pakistan’s strategic shift from direct wars to proxy warfare, J&K became the prime battlefield.
The Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan started providing arms, funds and ideological
training to selected youth to wage a "jihad" against India.
Escalation and Pakistan's Role
• By 1990, thousands of terrorists had infiltrated from across the border. Towns like Sopore, Anantnag
and Pulwama turned into militant strongholds.
• Pakistan’s "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts" doctrine turned Kashmir into the frontline of
asymmetric warfare.
• Training camps flourished in PoK and Pakistan's NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), where youth
were brainwashed with extremist ideologies.
Terrorist Groups Active in Kashmir
1. Hizbul Mujahideen (HM)
o Formed in 1989 as an indigenous Kashmiri militant outfit.
o Became the military wing of Jamaat-e-Islami.
o Operated under the guidance of ISI; known for local recruitment.
o Stronghold: South Kashmir, especially Pulwama, Tral, and Shopian.
2. Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)
o Founded in 1990, headquartered in Muridke, Pakistan.
o Operates under the banner of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD).
o Focuses on large scale attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
o Uses Kashmir as a base to promote pan-Islamist objectives in South Asia.
3. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)
o Established in 2000 by Masood Azhar, after his release during the IC-814 hijacking crisis.
o Infamous for suicide attacks and high value targets.
o Backed by the Pakistani state and linked to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
4. The Resistance Front (TRF)
o Emerged in late 2019, claims to be a local resistance group.
o However, intelligence suggests TRF is a front for LeT, created to avoid FATF scrutiny on
Pakistan.
o Known for targeted civilian killings, especially non Kashmiris and Kashmiri Pandits, to incite
communal tensions.
New Trend: Local Radicalization
• A major shift has occurred in the last decade: foreign fighters are being replaced by radicalized
local youth.
• The death of Burhan Wani (Hizbul commander) in 2016 acted as a flashpoint. His glorified image
on social media inspired many Kashmiri teenagers to pick up guns.
• Platforms like Telegram, Instagram and Facebook are being used by militants to recruit and
motivate.
• Between 2016–2021, more than 800 local youths joined militant groups, many under the age of 22.
India’s Current Counter Terror Strategy
India’s fight against terrorism, especially in Jammu and Kashmir, has evolved significantly over the past two
decades. With growing security threats, particularly cross border infiltration and homegrown radicalization.
India has moved beyond conventional methods and adopted a multi layered and integrated counter terror
strategy. This approach includes military operations, intelligence coordination, technological
surveillance, legal tightening and international diplomacy all working in tandem to neutralize both the
source and symptoms of terrorism.
A. Military and Tactical Measures
1. Operation All-Out (2017–Present)
After observing a significant rise in local youth joining militant outfits especially in the aftermath of Burhan
Wani’s killing in 2016 the government launched ‘Operation All-Out’ in 2017. The primary objective was to
completely eliminate the militant ecosystem, including both active fighters and their leadership.
Features:
• Joint Operation: A coordinated effort between the Indian Army, CRPF, Border Security Force
(BSF) and Jammu & Kashmir Police.
• Objective: Eliminate known militants, especially top commanders of Hizbul Mujahideen (HM),
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
• Method: Intensive cordon-and-search operations (CASO), based on specific intelligence inputs,
targeting militant hideouts in forests, villages and urban centers.
Achievements:
• Between 2017–2023, over 1,500 militants were killed many of whom were high value targets and
leadership figures.
• Significant reduction in the number of active militants from over 300 in 2016 to less than 120 by
early 2024.
• Recovery of a large number of AK-47s, IEDs, grenade launchers and Pakistani-origin
communication equipment.
Limitations:
• Despite military success, new recruits continue to emerge, often inspired by ideology or personal
grievance.
• The socio political alienation of youth remains a major challenge indicating that military action alone
cannot solve the crisis.
2. Surgical Strikes (2016 & 2019)
India adopted a new offensive doctrine by launching surgical strikes a tactic previously avoided due to fear
of escalation.
2016 Surgical Strikes:
• Carried out on September 29, 2016, just 10 days after the Uri Army Base attack that killed 19
soldiers.
• Indian Army’s Special Forces crossed the Line of Control (LoC) and targeted seven terrorist launch
pads deep inside Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
• First time India publicly acknowledged cross-border military action post 1971 war.
2019 Balakot Airstrikes:
• On February 26, 2019, in response to the Pulwama suicide attack (which killed 40 CRPF jawans),
Indian Air Force jets bombed Jaish-e-Mohammed’s training camp in Balakot, Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan).
• The operation was a deep-strike air mission involving Mirage 2000 fighter jets and marked India’s
first airstrike inside Pakistan since the 1971 war.
Strategic Significance:
• Changed India's counter terrorism playbook from “defensive deterrence” to preemptive retaliation.
• Sent a clear message to Pakistan and the international community that India would not hesitate to
cross borders to eliminate terror threats.
• Earned global diplomatic support, particularly from the US, France, and Israel.
C. Legal and Policy Measures
India's legal framework for counter-terrorism has been progressively strengthened to give law enforcement
the necessary powers, but not without debate over civil liberties. The government aims to balance security
needs with constitutional rights.
1. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
• India’s primary anti-terror law.
• Allows government to declare individuals or organizations as “terrorists” or “terror groups”.
• Empowers agencies to seize properties, freeze bank accounts and intercept communications.
• Amended in 2019 to expand the definition of terrorism and give NIA more autonomy.
Concerns have been raised about misuse against activists and political dissenters and a low conviction rate
(~30%) raises concerns about investigative rigor.
2. NIA Amendment Act, 2019
• Gave National Investigation Agency (NIA) powers to:
o Investigate terror cases outside India (such as Indian targets abroad).
o Take over state-level terror cases without consent of the state government.
o Investigate offences related to human trafficking, cyber-terrorism, explosives and
counterfeit currency.
• Since its empowerment, NIA has arrested hundreds in Kashmir linked to funding, logistics or direct
involvement in terror plots.
3. Crackdown on Terror Funding
• After it was revealed that militant groups were being funded through hawala, charity groups and
narcotics, the Indian government intensified efforts to stop the flow of money.
• Enforcement Directorate (ED) and NIA froze over ₹100 crores worth of properties linked to
separatist leaders.
• Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), a socio-political group suspected of funneling money to Hizbul Mujahideen,
was banned in 2019.
4. Banning of Radical Organizations and Digital Platforms
• India has banned over 40 organizations under UAPA including JeM, LeT, HM, TRF, Al-Qaeda,
ISIS affiliates, etc.
• Several YouTube and Telegram channels run by radical clerics or terrorist sympathizers have
been taken down in cooperation with international cyber watchdogs.
D. Diplomatic and Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
India has worked actively on the diplomatic front to isolate Pakistan as a terror sponsor, build global
consensus on terrorism, and push for stronger international cooperation.
1. Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Pressure on Pakistan
• India provided dossiers to FATF, proving Pakistan’s support to LeT and JeM.
• Due to global pressure (led by India and allies), Pakistan was kept on the FATF grey list from 2018
to 2022, affecting its international funding and loans.
2. United Nations and Global Blacklisting
• India succeeded in getting Masood Azhar (JeM chief) listed as a UN-designated global terrorist in
May 2019, despite earlier Chinese resistance.
• Regular submission of evidence dossiers to UN Security Council and Interpol to blacklist known
terrorists and their networks.
3. Strategic Partnerships and Intelligence Sharing
India has signed counter-terror and cyber-intelligence pacts with:
• United States (Homeland Security), Israel (Mossad), France (DGSI), and UK (MI5).
• Conducts joint counter-terror drills, shares terrorist database watchlists, and collaborates on
border surveillance tech.
• Works with Interpol, UNODC, and Europol to track international terror financing and fake passport
rings.
E. Challenges in India’s Current Counter-Terror Strategy
Despite major successes in neutralizing militants and enhancing security infrastructure, India’s counter-terror
approach continues to face significant structural and ground-level limitations. These challenges not only
affect operational efficiency but also risk increasing resentment, aiding terrorist propaganda, and allowing
foreign powers—particularly Pakistan—to exploit internal divisions.
1. Tactical and Operational Gaps
While India's counter-terror infrastructure in Jammu and Kashmir is among the most militarized in the world,
key vulnerabilities remain on the ground, especially in movement logistics, terrain control, and operational
response time.
Issues:
Convoy Movement Vulnerabilities:
• Security convoys continue to be high-value soft targets due to predictable movement patterns on
roads like NH-44 (Srinagar-Jammu Highway).
• Notable attacks:
o Pulwama (Feb 2019): 40 CRPF personnel killed.
o Anantnag (Aug 2023): 3 Army men killed in a TRF ambush.
o Pahalgam (July 2025): Latest attack killing multiple security personnel despite surveillance
deployment.
• Even with bulletproof vehicles and QRTs, advance route sanitization is often delayed due to civilian
traffic and terrain complexity.
Blind Spots in Surveillance:
• Dense forests in Tral, Shopian, and Kulgam, and high ridges in Kupwara and Uri provide natural
cover to militants.
• LoC areas have shown increasing drone activity—India reported over 260 drone sightings in 2023,
many dropping arms, cash, or communication gear.
• Existing surveillance infrastructure cannot provide real-time monitoring in all areas, allowing
militants to hide, regroup, and strike.
Delayed Response Time:
• Though Quick Reaction Teams (QRTs) are now standard at most bases, reinforcements can take 15–
25 minutes in rural or forested areas.
• Terrain challenges, poor mobile connectivity, and fear of IED traps often delay intervention.
2. Intelligence Coordination Issues
Despite technological advancements, India still faces gaps in inter-agency cooperation, actionable
intelligence, and grassroots information flow.
Common Problems:
Overlapping Jurisdictions:
• Agencies like RAW, IB, NIA, Military Intelligence, CRPF Intelligence Unit, and State Police CID
often collect overlapping data.
• Example: The Pulwama attack occurred despite IB warnings of a car-borne IED threat indicating a
breakdown in field-level communication.
Lack of Ground-Level Human Intelligence (HUMINT):
• Locals fear militant backlash for providing information. In 2023 alone, TRF and PAFF killed over
20 civilians accused of being “informants.”
• Lack of trust between forces and civilians in South Kashmir leads to intelligence dead zones in key
areas like Bijbehara, Kakapora, and Sopore.
Technology vs Ground Reality Mismatch:
• While AI tools flag suspicious keywords or transaction patterns, they often fail to distinguish between
dissent, activism, and extremism.
• This can lead to false flags, resource diversion, or, worse, wrongful targeting eroding public trust.
3. Radicalization and Online Extremism
Modern terrorism is not only fought with guns but also with memes, hashtags and encrypted chats.
Radicalization today is driven by ideology, grievance and identity politics mostly online.
Data & Trends:
• NIA and J&K Police reports (2023–24) indicate that over 300 Kashmiri youth were radicalized
via Telegram, Threema, and closed WhatsApp groups.
• Militants often use gaming platforms, proxy forums, and religious YouTube channels for covert
indoctrination.
• “Martyrdom videos” of killed militants are instantly shared across private social media groups,
creating a cycle of glorification
4. Alienation of Local Population
Over-dependence on military solutions without parallel civil outreach has caused sections of the Kashmiri
population, especially youth, to feel politically voiceless and socially isolated.
Ground Situation:
• Frequent CASOs (cordon and search operations) disrupt daily life. In 2023, over 1,100 CASOs
were conducted across J&K.
• Public Safety Act (PSA) detentions, often without trial, create fear and anger. Over 5,000 individuals
have been detained under PSA since 2019.
• Long internet shutdowns affect education, businesses, and mental health. Between 2019 and 2023,
Kashmir had over 300 days of internet blackouts—the highest in the world.
Militant groups exploit this alienation by portraying themselves as “defenders of Kashmiri identity,” helping
them attract recruits and sympathy.
5. Legal and Human Rights Concerns
India’s strong anti-terror laws—while essential—are often criticized for overreach, lack of checks, and low
conviction rates, which raise concerns both domestically and internationally.
• UAPA conviction rate: According to NCRB data (2022), conviction rate was only 29.2%. Many
remain undertrial for years.
• Lengthy detentions: UAPA allows 180-day pre-charge detention—double the standard 90 days.
• Allegations of misuse: In some cases, individuals are arrested for sharing critical social media posts
or attending protests.
• International backlash: Organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and
UNHRC have criticized mass detentions and curfews post-Article 370 abrogation.
Balancing the need to fight terrorism with India’s constitutional guarantees of free speech, due process, and
privacy.
6. Cross-Border Challenges and Pakistan’s Continued Support to Terrorism
India’s internal counter-terror measures are repeatedly undermined by Pakistan’s consistent support to
cross-border terror infrastructure.
• Infiltration attempts: Despite fencing and surveillance, 138 infiltration attempts were recorded in
2023 (J&K Police data).
• Drones: Over 250 drone sorties from across the LoC were detected in 2023, many dropping grenades,
arms, and cash.
• Rebranded groups: Though Pakistan bans groups like JeM and LeT under FATF pressure, they
operate under names like:
o TRF (The Resistance Front)
o PAFF (People’s Anti-Fascist Front)
o Ghaznavi Force
Without international pressure on Pakistan, these proxy groups will continue to destabilize Kashmir—even
if their names or flags change.
7. Lack of a Comprehensive De-radicalization Policy
India has no unified national strategy to de-radicalize or rehabilitate individuals caught in the web of
extremism—especially young, first-time offenders.
Current Scenario:
• Some pilot programs exist in Kerala, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh, involving psychologists
and local clerics—but these are not scaled to Kashmir.
• J&K Police had launched a “home return” initiative for surrendered militants—but after 2019, it
lost momentum.
• Former militants are often sent to jail or put under surveillance, with no mental health or educational
rehabilitation.